Re: [PATCH v2] clone: Don't segfault on -b specifing a non-commit
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 6, 2019, 01:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqbltpyeel.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20191105043749.GA27601@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> I like the logic flow in this function, which is IMHO clearer than the > existing code. But the "err" thing puzzled me for a moment. I think you > are trying to tell the difference between the case that both "our" and > "remote" are NULL, and the case that we saw a non-commit. In either case > we return NULL, but only one is an error.
Yup.
Show 5 quoted lines
> But: > > - I don't think that logic needs to extend down into > lookup_commit_reference_gently(); a NULL return from it would always > be an error, wouldn't it?
Yes.
Show 16 quoted lines
> - we could probably simplify this by just inlining it into
> update_head(). Something like:
>
> if (our)
> tip = &our->old_oid;
> else if (remote)
> tip = &remote->old_oid;
>
> if (!tip) {
> /*
> * We have no local branch requested with "-b", and the
> * remote HEAD is unborn. There's nothing to update HEAD
> * to, but this state is not an error.
> */
> return 0;
> }I somehow had an impression that Davide was protecting against the case where tip->old_oid is null_oid (cloning from an empty repo?); NULL return from lookup_commit_reference_gently(null_oid) would not deserve a warning from this codepath, and should work just like the way it has worked before these changes.
Show 19 quoted lines
> tip_commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(...);
> if (!tip_commit) {
> /*
>> - fetch_if_missing = 1;
>> - err = checkout(submodule_progress);
>> + if (!err) {
>> + fetch_if_missing = 1;
>> + err = checkout(submodule_progress);
>> + }
>
> This part makes sense. We might want an explanatory comment along the
> lines of:
>
> /*
> * Only try to checkout if we successfully updated HEAD; otherwise
> * HEAD isn't pointing to the thing the user wanted.
> /
> if (!err) {
> ...Yup.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> diff --git a/t/t5609-clone-branch.sh b/t/t5609-clone-branch.sh > > I think it would be the case that the remote HEAD is pointing to a > non-commit (since that's a corrupt repository, it might make sense > create a separate sub-repository).
All good comments.
Thanks